Allow me to bookmark for the moment. That's a spanking post, and worthy of my best efforts, which are sadly denied me in my currently inebriated and intoxicated state. I seem some potential bones of contention, but also some really interesting definition that I suspect will show that we agree completely. It will require discursive nuance, constructed over time, and honed through many agreements and not a few disagreements, tenaciously pursued.

People, I can't recommend Sparhafoc highly enough. A fellow survivor of the night of the long knives and staunch cohort for well over a decade.

DepricatedZero wrote:Of course, I'm also not going to offer correction to their misinformation either, because I'm fine with letting people who want to be ignorant, be ignorant. I'm not here to teach them, or bystanders - except in very specific instances where that's the goal. But if someone at a show tries to proselytize to me I'm not giving them more than to reject their claim.

This may be an overstatement, but the only concern I have with this mode of thinking is the possibility into falling into one of the many echo chambers on the internet and in life. While I do choose not to engage at times using the manner you describe, I try to be fully cognizant of where the person is coming from. That person may honestly feel like "my immortal soul" is in danger if not for spurious reasons. With all the ignorance in the world, I don't know what else one can do besides educate. Correct me if I'm wrong by stating my perception of your position.

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20

I used to identify as an atheist as more of a proxy for the associations it has with science and rationality etc. I was more proud and tenacious.

Over time I've realised that it fortunately doesn't affect me so much as it might for someone living in the Bible belt say or Saudi Arabia. Sure those people need allies across the world, but realistically for me in 21st century Britain being an atheist is no big deal. It doesn't stop me getting work, or make my family disown me. I'm not confronted by religion every day. Frankly I feel that there are more pressing issues in Britain such as half the population making people feel unwelcome here because of where they were born, or the rising use of food banks by working people.

Nowadays I'll use atheism to denote my views if I'm asked, but I'm far less likely to rant about it. I would prefer to identify as a secular humanist because it encompasses the values that want to fight prejudice and inequality. For me atheism as a movement has soured since it has become divided over social justice issues. I support those who want to make the movement inclusive and embracing of diversity but I haven't got the energy to take up the mantle anymore.

Hmm... Well, I can't say you're wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a world view or philosophy in itself. Given that, it really doesn't make sense to identify as an atheist anymore than it does to tie your identity to your non-belief in Russel's Teapot. It doesn't say anything substantive.

However, the actual written definition isn't the whole story here. Atheists have been culturally identified and labeled as a distinct group, and it is generally seen as implying an active disbelief in a God or Gods. Incorrect though it may be, I think a lot of people see value in having a label for others who disbelieve. Disbelief in itself is not an interesting topic, but many people are against a lot of social pressure to believe and need an external support network. Others may just want to wear the badge of atheism in defiance of the stigma which surrounds it. It's not a great label and we didn't get to pick it, but for now it's what we've got and it's probably going to stick. I'll take that over being called 'brights' anyway

SpaceyMan wrote:Hmm... Well, I can't say you're wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a world view or philosophy in itself. Given that, it really doesn't make sense to identify as an atheist anymore than it does to tie your identity to your non-belief in Russel's Teapot. It doesn't say anything substantive.

However, the actual written definition isn't the whole story here. Atheists have been culturally identified and labeled as a distinct group, and it is generally seen as implying an active disbelief in a God or Gods. Incorrect though it may be, I think a lot of people see value in having a label for others who disbelieve. Disbelief in itself is not an interesting topic, but many people are against a lot of social pressure to believe and need an external support network. Others may just want to wear the badge of atheism in defiance of the stigma which surrounds it. It's not a great label and we didn't get to pick it, but for now it's what we've got and it's probably going to stick. I'll take that over being called 'brights' anyway

Hi Spacey,

Like your other post, this was made on a somewhat old thread, which is the reason I didn't see it in my queue.